The 'Anti-' Mindset: Movement vs. Movement

[Dodger]

The 'Anti-' Mindset: Movement vs. Movement

Using Justice As A Scapegoat

What does it mean to create a philosophical movement? A theological movement? A scientific movement?

Why is it that such 'movements' are created?

Of course, the answers to these questions come by nature, so lets ask a more suitable, often ignored question:

'What is the reason for the 'anti' movement?'

Part One--Motivation

In order to answer this question, we have to ask a few more to find the source of the movement. So lets begin with the motivation for creating an 'anti' movement. Ill use feminism as the example for now.

Feminism has played a large role in the United States, if not the entire western culture. It has changed the way our society functions, and has had dramatic effects on the legal system, commercial system, and so much more.

Feminism itself is a movement for equality between men and women. I use feminism as an example because it's main goals are flawed. Equality between men and women cannot be possible, simply because men and women are two different beings.

So, what is the proper action one should take to shed light on these flaws?

Well, many people thought it would be common sense to counteract feminism and and create a movement largely known as Antifeminism, with many branches of the movement created in the name of men's rights, etc.

So the motivation for this particular example to create the 'anti' movement is simply the flaws present in the feminist philosophy.

Part Two--Justification

Well, antifeminism seems to be justified right?

Wrong.

This is where the subtitle comes in: Using Justice As A Scapegoat.

Men often say that justice is being destroyed when women force standards to change to favor them, and I agree with them. Justice is being set aside to give women special care, and now women can take advantage of men in almost any situation possible.

Well, doesnt that mean I should support antifeminism?

No.

The reason I do not support this movement is because whenever an 'anti' movement is created, the goals of the movement are NOT productive, rather, destructive.

Antifeminism seeks to destroy feminism and take it out of society instead of creating a better, more efficient movement that would solve the problems for both movements. People would rather destroy that which they do not agree with than create something that others will agree with.

Antifeminism using justice as a reason to, ironically, justify its reasons to fight it. It seems like such a noble cause, doesnt it?

No.

Anything that seeks to destroy is bad.

AntiChristianity--Athiesm.

Athiesm seeks to destroy Christianity, and encourages others to shrug off the religion completely, and ignore all of the productive aspects of Christianity.

AntiCapitalism--Socialism

Socialism seeks to destroy private property and wants everything to be used for the public good, and ignores all of the productive aspects of Capitalism.

You see where I'm going with this.

Part Three--Anti Mindsets

Now then, lets break it down to a more personal level. Movements are created by likeminded people who seek a common goal, so lets take a look at the minds of these likeminded people, shall we?

Whenever groups are formed productivity can arise from the commonalities within the group.

Groups of people can effect build, or they can destroy--it is their chioce.

To make it even more personal, lets take this forum, for instance.

The group of people present here are similar and have common goals. They are all objectivists to some extent and seek to share knowledge, etc.

Doesnt that seem good? Who would dare say such a group could be bad?

I would.

Whether or not you want to admit it, likeminded groups can cause problems. There is a thing called the 'mob mentality' and when one person speaks up against the group's values, the group can take one of two actions, but not both:

1) Cooperate with the individual and work towards understanding the individuals views and explaining the groups as best as possible,

or,

2) Getting rid of the individual because the individual is a threat to the group's cohesiveness.

If the group chooses the former, they are seeking to be productive and cooperative, trying to find better ways to look at themselves and others.

If the group chooses the latter, they are using justice as a scapegoat, and using the potential threat of the individual as justification to get rid of him, or silence him.

This is why groups can be potentially hazardous, but it is up to the members of the group to keep open minds, or better yet, the leader of such groups to be rational and open.

------------

This is all I have for now, and Im going to rewrite and add to this, and eventually fine tune it and send it in as an article. But for now, I want to hear your thoughts.

[BAMF]

This reminds me of a Manson song.

1996

Anti choice

Anti Girl

I am the anti-flag unfurled

Anti white and anti man

I got the anti-future plan

Anti fascist

Anti mod

I am the anti-music god

Anti sober

Anti whore

There will never be enough of anti more

I can't believe in the things

That don't believe in me

Now it's your turn to see misanthropy

Anti people, now you've gone too far

Here's your Anti-Christ Superstar

Anti money

Anti hate

Anti things I fucked and ate

Anti cop

Anti fun

Here is my anti-President gun

Anti Satan

Anti black

The anti world is on my back

Anti gay and anti dope

I am the faggot anti-Pope

(bridge)

(chorus)

Anti peace

Anti life

Anti husband, anti wife

Anti song and anti me

I don't deserve a chance to be!

------------------

More later. LOL.

[Danneskjold]

This is overall very well put together and correct. I'm not sure I would agree with all of what you named as being an anti-movement, but the ideas are correct.

Anti-movements are strange things. They are productive only if what they are against is wrong, but they are like a fatal parasite in that they constantly have to find new things to be against to stay alive.

I may be nitpicking here, but a quick note on the feminism thing, I think men and women can be equal, just not in the way feminists want.

[Chris Grieb]

Dodger,

I think the largest "anti" movement is conservatism. It is basically being against Liberals. That is why it is has so many elements in it.

For more on this you might want to look at the March '07 New Individualist. You can get it from the Objectivist Center.

Edited May 8, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Steve Gagne]

Dodger,

I think the largest "anti" movement is conservatism. It is basically being against Liberals. That is why it is has so many elements in it.

For more on this you might want to look the previous New Individualist. You can get it from the Objectivist Center.

Chris

I post to a few different conservative blatherboards, and sadly, from what I've seen I think you are right. Every time I attempt to get a thoughtful, collaborative discussion going, there isn't a helpful, "but what about this?"-type attitude, but a straight-go-for-the-jugular type attack (somewhat like one sees on some other so-called "objectivist" boards). People even attack you for agreeing with them. It's a real time waster.

More L8R.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

People even attack you for agreeing with them.

Steve,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL,,,

That also sounds like some Objectivist boards.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Dodger,

I remember a story that when Miss Rand was interviewed by Playboy the interviewer wanted to describe as an Anti-Communist. Miss Rand changed it to Radical for Capitalism because she wanted some positive statement.

It is not enough to just be against.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mitchell,

The tenor of the article is very good and should be developed. It is true that if you don't have something positive to advance, promoting a negative is nothing but tribalism (collectivism, crowd psychology, there are several names for it). Actually, scapegoating is an essential part of tribal culture. There has to be a common enemy so the members don't fight amongst themselves. Also, there is something in human nature that likes dirt and gossip more than achievement. It is far easier to draw a crowd to a public hanging than to the laying of the first cornerstone of a magnificent building project.

There is a critic of Objectivism named Bob Wallace. He is very over-the-top, hostile, often more nasty than he complains about in others, and often just plain wrong. (I once read a comment from this dude smirking about a blunderbuss being in Atlas Shrugged, which of course was absurd and nothing but pure invention of his.) However, he highlighted a fault in Objectivist thinking that I believe needs to be taken very seriously: scapegoating.

Objectivists have certain groups—altruists, mystics, collectivists, evaders, etc.—that are The Evil Ones who are constantly scapegoated. Once a person is tainted with the blood of having an altruistic or mystical premise, irrespective of how marginal or isolated it is, nothing else he says or does has any value and, of course, he holds a death premise and is unspeakably evil. Thus they exaggerate arguments all out of proportion to show you the evil. Obviously I am not talking about all Objectivists, but you will find the following boneheads in the subculture.

If a man says it is wrong to watch a child starve and not do anything about it, suddenly he is trying to enslave the entire free world to feed the starving babies of Africa. If a man says that he believes in God, but also endorses using reason in his affairs, suddenly he is a Witch Doctor who is the spiritual descendant of the Spanish Inquisition. If am man says he wants to drink clean water and doesn't like pollution, suddenly he is an anti-industrial savage trying to take man back to prehistoric times. Regardless of what the context is, once you have aligned yourself with one of the scapegoats, you are irredeemable to these boneheads and are best served from there on out by suicide.

This is especially true for those who support or deal with the excommunicated ones. Here the problem is more than a few boneheads. Here we have organized persecution on a larger scale. I associate with the excommunicated proudly, but I do it as me. I don't do it as part of any movement. OL is full of people who think like that—as individuals, not tribe members.

You might be interested to know that when Rand was asked what she thought about feminism, she claimed that she was not the best person to ask because she was a male chauvinist.

In the same Playboy interview that Chris mentioned, she was asked whether Objectivism was an atheistic philosophy and she stated that this was true as a result, but not as a primary. She couldn't devise a philosophy based on a negative (God doesn't exist). Objectivism was based on promoting reason instead. As concerns the existence of God, since rational thought is based on the evidence of the senses, there was no reason to believe in God. But that is a secondary consideration, not a premise. If you like, I can find the quote for you, but you can find the text on Google easily enough.

Michael

[BAMF]

Objectivists have certain groups—altruists, mystics, collectivists, evaders, etc.—that are The Evil Ones who are constantly scapegoated. Once a person is tainted with the blood of having an altruistic or mystical premise, irrespective of how marginal or isolated it is, nothing else he says or does has any value and, of course, he holds a death premise and is unspeakably evil. Thus they exaggerate arguments all out of proportion to show you the evil. Obviously I am not talking about all Objectivists, but you will find the following boneheads in the subculture.

I've never understood that mentality. I've always found it interesting to hear other peoples' perspectives on things. I have a VERY close friend who is a fairly devout Catholic, but he's quite intelligent and one of the most FUN people I've ever met. That's more than I can say for those 'bonehead' O'ists. Those who pick out the 'evaaal' in everything bore me. To death.

[Chris Grieb]

Kori, Your instincts about your friend are absolutely correct and you should keep her.

A good friend of mine who has been involved with Objectivism longer than I have calls these people TA Objectivists. See if you figure out what TA stands for?